I can see how SUPERFICIALLY that might seem like a strong argument. However, when one examines the situation and evaluates how likely it is that a star would form in the vicinity of Earth in the time frame we have had the technological capability to observe the event we find it is highly unlikely we should see a star birth.

Here's a calculation I did in the "Why Don't We See Stars 'Igniting'" discussion showing exactly why it is not surprising we have never observed a star birth:

Quite frankly, Mike, he's lying.

Again, with the (false) accusation I'm lying. I think that's the third time in this discussion alone he has accused me of dishonesty.

Calypsis is the one lying and I'll prove it.

Let me show you something:
Quote: "The known history of supernova observation goes back to 185 CE, when,supernovaSN 185 appeared, the oldest appearance of a supernova recorded by humankind. Several additional supernovae within the Milky Way galaxy have been recorded since that time, with SN 1604 being the most recent supernova to be observed in this galaxy.[1]

Since the development of the telescope, the field of supernova discovery has expanded to other galaxies.(Wikipedia)

The question isn't about supernova, it's about stars. Since Calypsis likes Wikipedia so much....

Calypsis wants to compare the ability to observe supernova... which shine with the light of an entire galaxy containing many billions of stars.... with ordinary stars. Of course we can see supernova to vast distances. In fact, I've pointed out they have been detected as far as 10 billion light years. It's like comparing the light output of a match with a nuclear weapon. Calypsis might as well say we can see a nuke from 1,000 miles in space, so we should be able to see a match too.

The comparison is dishonest on its face.... which is typical of Calypsis......

But they only like math/physics when they can twist things to their own ends.

Which is pretty much all the time..... but no "twisting" is needed... just a simple straightforward application of the relevant science.

Again, with the (false) accusation I'm lying. I think that's the third time in this discussion alone he has accused me of dishonesty.

Yet you just did it again. You are an utterly dishonest person and you are wasting our time and efforts having to continually answer the pseudo-scientific garbage you audaciously post here on EFF. We are tired of it. While we could be discussing matters with people who are honest inquirers after the truth yet we have to put up with your mental junk food almost daily.

Calypsis is the one lying and I'll prove it.

No, you can prove nothing for you are not standing on the side of the truth to begin with. ...least of all on the side of scriptural truth about the creation. The Word of the Lord Jesus Christ about Genesis, Adam & Eve, and the flood of Noah means nothing to you.

The question isn't about supernova, it's about stars. Since Calypsis likes Wikipedia so much....

No,the question is about the mathematical improbablity that supernova's (events of degeneration...not evolution) far outnumber the so-called 'birth of stars' by the dozens to ZERO during the same time frame --- that is if evolution were true. SO...(by comparison) if the cells in your body reproduced cells by meiosis at the same rate that programmed cell death kills them every single day by any similar comparison, then guess what(?)....you would eventually lose your health and die. GASP! That is exactly what happens.That's what entropy does. So in between 5,000 and 6,000 yrs of human observation of the heavens no one has ever recorded the birth of a star. Conclusion: stars do NOT form by nebular gases or any other force in space: they dissipate, they do not coalesce. That's basic physics but the truth is you don't care about basic physics, you manipulate it.

You can disagree with me, shout and scream out loud, or fall on the floor and throw a tissy fit; but you cannot give us a single example of what YOU BELIEVE IN as far as star births are concerned. So live with it.

Calypsis wants to compare the ability to observe supernova... which shine with the light of an entire galaxy containing many billions of stars.... with ordinary stars. Of course we can see supernova to vast distances. In fact, I've pointed out they have been detected as far as 10 billion light years. It's like comparing the light output of a match with a nuclear weapon. Calypsis might as well say we can see a nuke from 1,000 miles in space, so we should be able to see a match too.

Talk to me, piasan, not to my creationist companions out there who don't believe you anyway. But to answer your statement: you don't know how many stars are out there any more than NASA, NIA, or even Neil de Grasse Tyson. It's a guessing game, which is exactly what evolution is to begin with. My documentation on this thread is devastating to any honest researcher who has not been as mentally wiped by evolution theory as you have.

The comparison is dishonest on its face.... which is typical of Calypsis......

No, sir. It is typical of you. You've got your facts backwards again and as long as you haunt this website with your dark presence you will be confronted with your errors and dishonest assumptions.

Which is pretty much all the time..... but no "twisting" is needed... just a simple straightforward application of the relevant science.

You wouldn't know 'relevant science' if it hit you upside the head....which is exactly what you have gotten from me, Enoch, gilbo, Indydave, Giovanni, Mike etc. since you came on board.

P.S. What I said earlier: "So what we have observed as opposed to what we have NOT observed matches our position, not his," sticks out glaringly.

Yet you just did it again. You are an utterly dishonest person and you are wasting our time and efforts having to continually answer the pseudo-scientific garbage you audaciously post here on EFF. We are tired of it. While we could be discussing matters with people who are honest inquirers after the truth yet we have to put up with your mental junk food almost daily.

Nothing substantive? At least I addressed the substance of your claims about supernovae by pointing out they are as bright as billions of suns .... which is why we can see them so easily.

Do you mean the pseudo science from NASA, the Hubble Project, various universities, etc?

Why not go back and show that considering the size of the universe, the number of stars, and the distance at which we can see individual stars (before they go supernova) we SHOULD be able to see stars being born? You can't because the mathematics says we should have the opportunity to see an individual star ignite about once in 600 years.... IF we're looking in exactly the right direction at exactly the right time.

You can't because either:

1) The calculations are right or

2) You lack the skills to evaluate them.

A lack of ability on your part does not equate to dishonesty on my part.

Why the mature spiral galaxies are such a huge problem for cosmic evolution:

Quote:

THE PARADOX: GROWN-UP GALAXIES IN AN INFANT UNIVERSE

Hubble Space Telescope's recent observations identify fully formed elliptical galaxies in a pair of primordial galaxy clusters that have been surveyed by teams lead by Mark Dickinson of the Space Telescope Science Institute and Duccio Macchetto of the European Space Agency and the Space Telescope Science Institute. Although the clusters were first thought to be extremely distant because of independent ground- based observations, the Hubble images provide sharp enough details to confirm what was only suspected previously.

The surprise is that elliptical galaxies appeared remarkably "normal" when the universe was a fraction of its current age, meaning that they must have formed a short time after the Big Bang.

Dickinson, in studying a cluster that existed when the universe was nearly one-third its current age, finds that its red galaxies resemble ordinary elliptical galaxies, the red color coming from a population of older stars.

This has immediate cosmological implications, since the universe must have been old enough to accommodate them. Cosmologies with high values for the rate of expansion of space (called the Hubble Constant, which is needed for calculating the age of the universe) leave little time for these galaxies to form and evolve to the maturity we're seeing in the Hubble image," Dickinson emphasizes.

Macchetto's observation of a galaxy that existed 12 billion years ago, or nearly one-tenth the universe's present age, also finds a light distribution remarkably similar to today's elliptical galaxies

Well, well, well, some evolutionists are much more honest than others, especially when they are not being confronted by creationists about their conclusions.

Do they even know how galaxies formed? No, they don't know that either.

Quote:"The cause of this disappearance of spirals from clusters, from four billion years ago to the present, is unsettled and vigorously debated. Just the fact that the form of entire galaxies could be altered in so short a time is important in our attempts to find out how galaxies formed in the first place," Dressler concludes.

Friends, there should be NO spiral galaxies after the first ten to twenty million light years out. Such galaxies take several million years to turn once but (supposedly, according to the theory) they spin out after a just a few turns. I have already documented this but if anyone wishes to see it again I will post it.

But here is another problem for the evo's: (it's a humdinger!)

A backwards spinning galaxy with arms within it spinning the opposite direction. It's sort of like seeing a backwards spinning hurricane with another hurricane inside of it spinning the opposite direction. That, of course, would be impossible in light of the Coriolis Effect upon the hemispheres.

FEBRUARY 7, 2002: Astronomers have found a spiral galaxy that may be spinning to the beat of a different cosmic drummer. To the surprise of astronomers, the galaxy, called NGC 4622, appears to be rotating in the opposite direction to what they expected. Pictures from NASA's Hubble Space Telescope helped astronomers determine that the galaxy may be spinning clockwise by showing which side of the galaxy is closer to Earth. This Hubble telescope photo of the oddball galaxy is presented by the Hubble Heritage team. The image shows NGC 4622 and its outer pair of winding arms full of new stars [shown in blue].

Astronomers are puzzled by the clockwise rotation because of the direction the outer spiral arms are pointing. Most spiral galaxies have arms of gas and stars that trail behind as they turn. But this galaxy appears to have two "leading" outer arms that point toward the direction of the galaxy's clockwise rotation. To add to the conundrum, NGC 4622 also has a "trailing" inner arm that is wrapped around the galaxy in the opposite direction it is rotating. Based on galaxy simulations, a team of astronomers had expected that the galaxy was turning counterclockwise.

By what law of physics can this be rationalized?

But those of us who believe in the Lord and that He is the God of all creation, we think therefore that this is another example of His handiwork that confounds the minds of those who know Him not.

There are so many anomalies in our universe and in our solar system in particular that simply defy the laws of physics that evolution theory cannot explain. More reasons why we don't believe them.

Nothing makes common sense to you, O Orwellianized one. Cosmic evolution is a joke not just for this but for the fact that our universe is doing just the opposite to what the cosmo theorists tell us:" it is a degenerating univserse and it will eventually experience a heat death because of that degeneration.

Mikethewize hit the nail on the head with the right question: "Are any of them (stars) forming." Those of you who believe in that nonsense haven't observed a single star form in the history of mankind. Hmm, sounds sort of like the fact that no one has ever observed a single organism transform from one classification into another completely different organism either by empirical proof or by the fossil record. But you believe in it anyway.

When astronomers and cosmologists talk about "cosmic evolution" or "stellar evolution" and so on they simply mean "how X changes over time". They are not using the colloquial use of evolution which is essentially that which gets bigger, better, and stronger.

IIRC Pi made a thread specifically dealing with why we don't directly observe stars forming; we simply haven't been watching the sky long enough. However, we do observe stars in various stages of development from proto-stars, to main sequence stars, to various giant stages.

So what? It may come as a great surprise for you to learn that galaxies are .....made of stars.

You learn something new everyday.

I just assume you copy-pasted that bit about Barnard's star and didn't edit it out, but Barnard's star is a star in our own galaxy and very close to our own Sun; it literally has nothing to do with redshift galaxies.

What, pray tell, is 'sufficiently far enough away'? Oh, you mean those regions of deep space (i.e. the 'red shift desert' and beyond) that have all those spiral galaxies that should not even exist now? You mean those stellar objects that should have spun out millions (& some billions) of years ago?

The galaxy needs to be sufficiently far enough away so that the gravitational attraction is superseded by dark energy. Ya know, Hubble's LAW.

First I was criticized for posting articles by journalists (i.e. Science.com, & TheUniverse Today, etc. who get their information from scientists!). Now I am criticized for posting information from astronomers (uh....NASA & the National Institute of Aerospace!) and yet EVEN THAT ISN'T GOOD ENOUGH for you guys.

This is the big part of the reason that you and piasan and others who have been hanging around here on EFF for so long have absolutely no credibility with us. Zero. And like the mind-controlled drones that Orwell described in 1984 who could not be embarrassed even when obvious facts were laid before them, you likewise are never embarrassed by that which is plain-as-day against what you believe in. You and those like you have destroyed your critical thinking skills by the acceptance of lies. Neo-Darwinian evolution is a lie.

I was responding to the OP, not your later posts involving NASA. At any rate no one is denying the facts you have brought forth from NASA and your other articles saying the estimates for the number of stars in the galaxy range from 100 billion to 400 billion, we are just perplexed as to why you think that is a valid argument against the entirety of main-stream astronomy/cosmology.

Similarly no one is denying that some galaxies are blue shifted, and again I think everyone can agree that the article that said "all galaxies are moving away from us" could have been worded better. Your argument is tantamount to me getting my little kid's bible out about Noah's Ark, quoting it saying that 'two of every kind' went on the boat, and say that it contradicts the Bible which says some went on the boat in pairs of seven not two, therefore Christians are a confused people that cannot be trusted. You are obsessing over nothing.

For all the talk about evolutionists not having critical thinking, you should start practicing what you preach.

If we see we know, if we know we have proof and then faith is MOOT, IMHO.

WRONG-O-RAMA Sir,

EXHIBIT A...

(Matthew 14:28-31) "And Peter answered him and said, Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee on the water. {29} And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus. {30} But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me. {31} And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?"

Peter had AAA ++ Eye Witness PROOF, yet still doubted. "PROOF" does not render null... the need for FAITH. As Clearly Demonstrated above.

When astronomers and cosmologists talk about "cosmic evolution" or "stellar evolution" and so on they simply mean "how X changes over time". They are not using the colloquial use of evolution which is essentially that which gets bigger, better, and stronger.

Things do change over time: they degenerate...which is exactly what we are observing NOW. IF the Lord tarries then the heat death of the universe is coming...all because of that entropic/disorder factor that affects everything that moves.

IIRC Pi made a thread specifically dealing with why we don't directly observe stars forming; we simply haven't been watching the sky long enough. However, we do observe stars in various stages of development from proto-stars, to main sequence stars, to various giant stages.

The first telescope was invented in 1608. That's 407 years of observing the heaven's which has resulted in multiple supernova sightings....but no star births. 'Various stages of development'(?)...should be 'various stages of deterioration'. Things collide, stars burn out, moons lose their orbit, and nebular clouds dissipate. No evolution.

You learn something new everyday.

I just assume you copy-pasted that bit about Barnard's star and didn't edit it out, but Barnard's star is a star in our own galaxy and very close to our own Sun; it literally has nothing to do with redshift galaxies.

But I didn't make the observation: those of YOUR persuasion did. It's blueshifted and whether its a galaxy or a star in this matter is irrelevant.

The galaxy needs to be sufficiently far enough away so that the gravitational attraction is superseded by dark energy. Ya know, Hubble's LAW.

Concerning 'dark energy' those of your ilk don't even know for sure if it exists:

SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN

Does Dark Energy Really Exist?

April 2009

Quote: In our own era, another revolution began to unfold 11 years ago with the discovery of the accelerating universe. A tiny deviation in the brightness of exploding stars led astronomers to conclude that they had no idea what 70 percent of the cosmos consists of. All they could tell was that space is filled with a substance unlike any other one that pushes along the expansion of the universe rather than holding it back. This substance became known as dark energy.

It is now over a decade later, and the existence of dark energy is still so puzzling that some cosmologists are revisiting the fundamental postulates that led them to deduce its existence in the first place.

Not only so but:physicsworld.comQuote: Most cosmologists believe that the universe is dominated by "dark energy" -- a mysterious form of energy that could explain why the universe is expanding and accelerating at the same time. Now, however, theoretical physicists have studied a new model of gravity that can, they claim, account for the acceleration of the universe without any need for dark energy

I was responding to the OP, not your later posts involving NASA. At any rate no one is denying the facts you have brought forth from NASA and your other articles saying the estimates for the number of stars in the galaxy range from 100 billion to 400 billion,

Wrong again: it was 100 billion to 200 billion to 300 billion to 400 billion to 1 trillion. FIVE widely differing guesses. So here was are again with the 'eeny, meeny, miny, moe' option. Which 'expert' opinion do you choose, sir?

we are just perplexed as to why you think that is a valid argument against the entirety of main-stream astronomy/cosmology.

Because 'main-stream' astronomy is just as confused and befuddled as you are. Again, which figure do you choose? Tell us which one and why. Then give evidence to what you have concluded is the right one.

The Word of God tells us...."so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable." Hebrews 11:12NOW THAT is scientific. The Lord tells us that the stars are 'without number' and your leading astronomers cannot do anything better than make widely diverging guesses about our Milky Way, still less how many are in the entire universe.

Similarly no one is denying that some galaxies are blue shifted, and again I think everyone can agree that the article that said "all galaxies are moving away from us" could have been worded better. Your argument is tantamount to me getting my little kid's bible out about Noah's Ark, quoting it saying that 'two of every kind' went on the boat, and say that it contradicts the Bible which says some went on the boat in pairs of seven not two, therefore Christians are a confused people that cannot be trusted. You are obsessing over nothing.

Yes, but we do NOT have a problem with the two of every unclean kind and the seven of every clean kind (you left that part out). So your analogy fails.

"Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female." Genesis 7:2

You can't even read things correctly. But we can bet grandpa's farm that you won't admit the mistake you just made.

For all the talk about evolutionists not having critical thinking, you should start practicing what you preach

Since when did you ever practice critical thinking? Not since you've been posting here on EFF that's for sure.

Things do change over time: they degenerate...which is exactly what we are observing NOW. IF the Lord tarries then the heat death of the universe is coming...all because of that entropic/disorder factor that affects everything that moves.

The point is that cosmic or stellar "evolution" is the model/study of how the cosmos or a star changes over time; it is not the same colloquial use of "evolution" that you appear to be using.

The first telescope was invented in 1608. That's 407 years of observing the heaven's which has resulted in multiple supernova sightings....but no star births. 'Various stages of development'(?)...should be 'various stages of deterioration'. Things collide, stars burn out, moons lose their orbit, and nebular clouds dissipate. No evolution.

As Pi noted supernova are extremely bright; as you yourself noted ancient civilizations have documented supernova long before the telescope was around. The birth of a star is not a fireworks display like a supernova. Plus a supernova lasts on the order of a few minutes, with the afterglow measured on the order of days, weeks, and months - IOW something that we can easily observe within a human lifetime if we are in the right vicinity to observe it. It takes thousands of years for the most massive of protostars to collapse into stars, and millions of years for low mass stars, not something we can observe within a human lifetime.

But I didn't make the observation: those of YOUR persuasion did. It's blueshifted and whether its a galaxy or a star in this matter is irrelevant.

Barnard's Star (within our own galaxy) is blueshifted, but what does that have to do with galaxy redshift or blueshift?

All you have to say is that you didn't edit it out of your copy-paste when you made the post and the matter of Barnard's Star is closed. I really have no intention of quibbling over something you accidentally put in, even if your pride is too great to admit you made a copy-paste editing mistake (or if you were unaware that Barnard's Star was a star in our own galaxy), but if you truly think this adds weight to your position that demands some sort of explanation.

Concerning 'dark energy' those of your ilk don't even know for sure if it exists:

SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN

Does Dark Energy Really Exist?

April 2009

Quote: In our own era, another revolution began to unfold 11 years ago with the discovery of the accelerating universe. A tiny deviation in the brightness of exploding stars led astronomers to conclude that they had no idea what 70 percent of the cosmos consists of. All they could tell was that space is filled with a substance unlike any other one that pushes along the expansion of the universe rather than holding it back. This substance became known as dark energy.

It is now over a decade later, and the existence of dark energy is still so puzzling that some cosmologists are revisiting the fundamental postulates that led them to deduce its existence in the first place.

Not only so but:physicsworld.comQuote: Most cosmologists believe that the universe is dominated by "dark energy" -- a mysterious form of energy that could explain why the universe is expanding and accelerating at the same time. Now, however, theoretical physicists have studied a new model of gravity that can, they claim, account for the acceleration of the universe without any need for dark energy

There is no cookie cutter answer of how far away is "far enough" as it depends on local and specific properties of the system in question, but conceptually you need to be far enough away so that dark energy overcomes any gravitational attraction between the two galaxies.

There is always dissension within science, yet dark energy is still the main-stream view within astronomy/cosmology despite that your article is several years old. Dark energy is just the best explanation for why Hubble's Law is reality. Recall that Hubble's Law states that all galaxies are moving away from us at a rate directly proportional to the distance they are from us, provided they are far enough away so that gravitational attraction is mitigated.

Let me ask you this, what is the farthest galaxy away from us that is blueshifted?

Wrong again: it was 100 billion to 200 billion to 300 billion to 400 billion to 1 trillion. FIVE widely differing guesses. So here was are again with the 'eeny, meeny, miny, moe' option. Which 'expert' opinion do you choose, sir?

I take all of them for what they are; they are just lower and upper bounds of the estimate using various techniques and parameters. I really have no idea why you are fixating on this issue.

Because 'main-stream' astronomy is just as confused and befuddled as you are. Again, which figure do you choose? Tell us which one and why. Then give evidence to what you have concluded is the right one.

The Word of God tells us...."so many as the stars of the sky in multitude, and as the sand which is by the sea shore innumerable." Hebrews 11:12NOW THAT is scientific. The Lord tells us that the stars are 'without number' and your leading astronomers cannot do anything better than make widely diverging guesses about our Milky Way, still less how many are in the entire universe.

I do not think they are as befuddled as you think; you get different answers depending on which techniques and parameters you use. For example do you count up the luminosity of the galaxy and divide by the average luminosity of a star (what do you use as the "average luminosity", never mind that some light is going to be blocked by other stars and dust), or do you count up the mass of the galaxy and divide it by the average mass of a star (again what do you use as the "average mass"), or do you count up the stars in a given region and multiply it by how many of those regions can fit inside the galaxy (how do you determine which "region" is representative of the galaxy since star density is not uniform)?

Depending on what technique you use and what parameters you put in you get somewhere between 100 billion and a trillion or more. What is your point?

Yes, but we do NOT have a problem with the two of every unclean kind and the seven of every clean kind (you left that part out). So your analogy fails.

"Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female." Genesis 7:2

You can't even read things correctly. But we can bet grandpa's farm that you won't admit the mistake you just made.

I intentionally left the part about clean and unclean animals out (as they usually do in kid's bible versions); I was being satirical.

Similarly there is no contradiction between your layman article saying "all galaxies are moving away" and the fact that there are blueshift galaxies; you just need the correct context and like many kid's bibles they don't always give you the details just like layman science articles.

Since when did you ever practice critical thinking? Not since you've been posting here on EFF that's for sure.

Your critical thinking skills are shining brightly throughout this thread, as always.

....... they don't always give you the details just like layman science articles.

More like "Laymen" Science Acumen for you and I'm being kind....

it is not the same colloquial use of "evolution" that you appear to be using.

Why don't you "lift the fog" for us and Define: The "Scientific" theory of evolution....?

It takes thousands of years for the most massive of protostars to collapse into stars, and millions of years for low mass stars, not something we can observe within a human lifetime.

It appears you're having a difficult time discerning the difference between SCIENTIFIC LAW VIOLATING "fairytales" and Science; here I'll "lift the fog" for you....

Science: Methodology ---- The Scientific Method.

Fairytales: Methodology ----- "Imagination".

Please Explain in some detail "Star Formation" in the "CONTEXT" of : 2LOT, Boyle's Gas Law, and Jeans Mass......mmmm K?

STARS "THEORETICALLY" IMPOSSIBLE, J. C. Brandt, "Contemporary opinion on star formation holds that the objects called protostars are formed as condensations from interstellar gas. This condensation process is very difficult theoretically and no essential theoretical understanding can be claimed; in fact, some theoretical evidence argues strongly against the possibility of star formation. However, we know that the stars exist, and we must do our best to account for them." ---- Sun And Stars, p.111

It's "difficult" theoretically and "theoretical evidence argues STRONGLY against it" ------ because it takes 2LOT/Boyle's Gas Law/ and Jeans Mass to the Woodshed and beats them Senseless.

Geoffrey Burbidge; Director, Kitt Peak National Observatory....

"If stars did not exist, it would be easy to prove that this is what we expect."

Science, V.295, p.76, 1/4/2002

Abraham Loeb, of Harvard’s Center for Astrophysics...

“The truth is that we don’t understand star formation at a fundamental level.”

The words 'evolution' are the same, but what are the similiarities once we acknowledge the same spelling? It's not a joke as it causes a problem.

Yes, by you.

From One of the Fathers of 20th Century "evolution" theory...

"Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life." {Emphasis Mine}

But they only like math/physics when they can twist things to their own ends.

Which is pretty much all the time..... but no "twisting" is needed... just a simple straightforward application of the relevant science.

You wouldn't know 'relevant science' if it hit you upside the head....which is exactly what you have gotten from me, Enoch, gilbo, Indydave, Giovanni, Mike etc. since you came on board.

Of that list, the ONLY one who has even attempted a straightforward application of the relevant science, much to his credit, is Indy.

The rest ..... if it requires an actual analysis of the impact of the claim, you're thru. Keep in mind, for most of the claims I haven't disputed the claim, what I have done is to evaluate the impact of it if it were true. Without exception, each and every one of the claims I've looked into were insignificant when compared to the overall picture.

a) Citing multiple articles by different journalists that all reference the exact same scientific research paper. (Four articles about one paper is still only one scientific source.)

The point is in just how widespread the idea is to begin with and how much it is being accepted by those of his ilk. He misses the point...as usual.

These four articles do not indicate how "widespread the idea is to begin with." All it means is that several journalists picked up on the paper and found it interesting enough to write an article. Publication in magazines like "Scientific American" or "National Geographic" does not mean the idea is gaining acceptance among scientists. It is not unusual for such papers to get a lot of publicity when they are first released, but little acceptance over time. Calypsis is mistaking publicity for acceptance.

b ) Citing the exact same article twice in two different publications as if it was two different sources.

NASA and the National Institute of Aereospace are not the same sources nor did they give the same information. Once again he isn't telling the truth.

Did I say something about NASA and the National Institute of Aerospace?

My reference in (a) and (b ) is to the nine .... er .... five sources you cited in the "One Way Speed of Light" discussion. Here are the two that were to the identical article:

"Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life." {Emphasis Mine}Dobzhansky T.G. "Changing Man", Science, 27 January 1967, Vol. 155. No 3761. p 409

.Is it possible that he mistakes me for Dobzhansky? With Enoch, anything is possible....very scary.

My spelling is so bad that as a younger adult I spelled "hello" as "hellow" until a friend of mine who was not a native English speaker burst out in uncontrollable laughter when he saw how I spelled hello. Yes, I am a native English speaker. USA!

Why don't you "lift the fog" for us and Define: The "Scientific" theory of evolution....?

In what capacity? In a broad sense a scientific theory of evolution would be a scientific theory that describes and explains how X changes over time.

It appears you're having a difficult time discerning the difference between SCIENTIFIC LAW VIOLATING "fairytales" and Science; here I'll "lift the fog" for you....

Science: Methodology ---- The Scientific Method.

Fairytales: Methodology ----- "Imagination".

Please Explain in some detail "Star Formation" in the "CONTEXT" of : 2LOT, Boyle's Gas Law, and Jeans Mass......mmmm K?

STARS "THEORETICALLY" IMPOSSIBLE, J. C. Brandt, "Contemporary opinion on star formation holds that the objects called protostars are formed as condensations from interstellar gas. This condensation process is very difficult theoretically and no essential theoretical understanding can be claimed; in fact, some theoretical evidence argues strongly against the possibility of star formation. However, we know that the stars exist, and we must do our best to account for them." ---- Sun And Stars, p.111

It's "difficult" theoretically and "theoretical evidence argues STRONGLY against it" ------ because it takes 2LOT/Boyle's Gas Law/ and Jeans Mass to the Woodshed and beats them Senseless.

Geoffrey Burbidge; Director, Kitt Peak National Observatory....

"If stars did not exist, it would be easy to prove that this is what we expect."

Science, V.295, p.76, 1/4/2002

Abraham Loeb, of Harvard’s Center for Astrophysics...

“The truth is that we don’t understand star formation at a fundamental level.”

Paisan never sets the record straight --- mainly because his position is predicated on a lie to begin with: Darwinian (& cosmic) evolution and the 'Big Bang'.

These four articles do not indicate how "widespread the idea is to begin with."

And if National Geographic, the Smithsonian, and Scientific American (along with a host of others I did mention) do not indicate a widespread idea, then what, pray tell, would indicate to us that the notion is widespread?

But let him prove his point. Let him call for a vote of all physicists and astronomers on earth to find out just what they really think on this issue. The truth is that piasan has no idea what they believe nor who lines up on his side as opposed to those who do not. But then he would have an easier time doing that then he would to find out how many stars are in our Milky Way.

All it means is that several journalists picked up on the paper and found it interesting enough to write an article.

Marcel Urban of the Université du Paris-Sud, Gerd Leuchs and Luis Sánchez-Soto, from the Max Planck Institute for the Physics of Light in Erlangen, Germany are not journalists. It was THEIR conclusions that some of the articles based their conclusions on. Piasan is deflecting the issue as he usually does.

Publication in magazines like "Scientific American" or "National Geographic" does not mean the idea is gaining acceptance among scientists. It is not unusual for such papers to get a lot of publicity when they are first released, but little acceptance over time. Calypsis is mistaking publicity for acceptance.

Like I said, let him prove it by taking a vote.

Did I say something about NASA and the National Institute of Aerospace?

He was trying to drag us back into the "One Way Speed of Light" controversy. He only confused the issue. I was referring to THIS TOPIC.

My reference in (a) and (b ) is to the nine .... er .... five sources you cited in the "One Way Speed of Light" discussion. Here are the two that were to the identical article:

Two? How horrible. But I assure you that he wouldn't believe my documentation if I posted twenty DIFFERENT sources revealing that his position is in error.

A team at NASA may have unintentionally accelerated particles to faster-than-light speeds while using the EmDrive resonance chamber - basically, if their findings turn out to be accurate, the team may have just discovered faster-than-light travel.

.
Is it possible that he mistakes me for Dobzhansky? With Enoch, anything is possible....very scary.

What in the World is this, Pray Tell?

"You" said ....

Using the word 'evolution' to represent cosmological phenonena promotes misunderstanding.

I Rebutted with what One of The Father's of 20th Century evolution theory said DIRECTLY CONCERNING your Statement....

"Evolution comprises all the stages of the development of the universe: the cosmic, biological, and human or cultural developments. Attempts to restrict the concept of evolution to biology are gratuitous. Life is a product of the evolution of inorganic nature, and man is a product of the evolution of life." {Emphasis Mine}